Customer Reviews

Constantine's Bible: Politics and the Making of the New Testament

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

Dungan begins by saying that it is a frequent misunderstanding to equate "scripture" and "canon." Scripture refers to a semidurable and evolving conglomeration of texts. A canon results when somebodies impose a boundary around a subset of these writings. Such action is not an obscure event. Since it requires strenuous, official action that is easily detectable because of the impact upon the religious community from that moment onward. Such action and impact can not be seen in the Vedic Upanishads, Taoism, etc., but it can be seen in Judaism and then Christianity. Later such action and impact can be seen in Islam as well (in the 7th century under the third Caliph, Uthman).

This is where Dungan starts to get fancy. He asserts that the range of meaning for the term "canon" needs to be understood as a part of the rise of the Greek city-state. Fancy or not, that is what etymology is. No doubt one would want to study the uses of the term canon in order to understand its etymology. Etymology of the term canon shows that it meant more than a reed as a measuring stick. For example, in the sixth century BCE Pythagoras applied measurement to musical tones and came up with kanonikoi or "standard tones." Such measurement permeated Greek philosophy as well. In a Hellenistic culture, early Christianity adopted the idea of canon as measurement, but Clement of Rome and Origen of Alexandria know no idea of a canon as a set of official doctrines. In fact, according to Dungan, no Christian scholar before the 4th century refers to "the canon."

At just about the turn of the era, Greek philosophical thought rebelled against the idea of pseudonymous authorship. A novel practice began in the first century BC/BCE. Dionysius of Halicarnassus made a biography of an Athenian orator and concluded it with a grading of the 60 books ascribed to the orator. By 230 AD/CE Diogenes Laetius uses a tripartite division of genuine, disputed, and spurious. So Eusebius was on firm *philosophical* grounds when he argued for the authenticity of books. To this he added apostolic succession. Apostolic succession has become a religious tenet among some Christians, but at the time of Eusebius it was also a solid philosophical argument.

Eusebius' work is not a singular opinion but a compilation of the work of other scholars from the previous two centuries. This is the high point of Dungan's book. Because every book now in the New Testament canon had been challenged, it had to be defended. Just before the Council of Nicaea, Eusebius had published his _Ecclesiastical History_. After the Council of Nicaea and Constantine's order of 50 Bibles, Eusebius' analysis of the selection of scripture became the last word. Writers began to refer to "the canon" and the debate withered and disappeared. It was not until the 18th century that Eusebius began to be reassessed.

Incidentally, after Constantine called the Council of Nicaea, Eusebius was put on the spot by being asked by the Emperor if he would accept the idea that Jesus was "of one substance" with the Father. There is no record of any objection by Eusebius or any other bishop to the Emperor's involvement into the affairs of the Christian Church.

I don't blame anyone for giving this 5 stars, but I'm going against the trend and giving it four. Why? Well, let me begin with its good points:
First, it does an excellent job suggesting a cultural/philosophical, and primarily Hellenistic, basis for the process of canonization. This one will undoubtedly stir discussion, if not derision, among some Evangelicals. On the other hand, showing just how thorough the legitimization of the eventually canonized texts was, through the rigorous historical work of Eusebius, should please Bible-lovers by showing that the choice of books which was selected was far from arbitrary, rooted in purely historical motives, etc.
Dungan does well here in capturing an angle that will both irritate, but also comfort, sola scriptura folks. On the one hand, all of this nonsense about conspiracy can be done away with in discussions about gnostic and questionable works, which Dungan shows clearly don't pass historical muster. On the other hand, what we are left with as "canon" is the result of alleged politicization of the church through Constantine, and this brings me to some of the mild drawbacks of the book.

In a nutshell, it has become fashionable in recent years to use Constantine as a whipping boy in church history, thereby raising a cloud of suspicion over every project to which his name can be attached--an influence which gave the Church "power," and all too likely, we are led to believe, tainted the "purity" of an early age (and also one with many more loose ends--enough to allow for the disintegration of the Christian faith, one is often led in these discussions to suspect--though not necessarily by Dungan--if it wasn't for the artificial solidification of the Christian cultural base through the assertion of crass political force). While Dungan somewhat avoids the temptation to pass judgment on the unarguable political influence of Constantine, it is clear that he wishes for us to be left wondering about any decisions regarding the canon that evolve after the time of Eusebius. And this leaves a HUGE question completely unaddressed--the inclusion of the various deuterocanonical works in earlier Bibles, and their expulsion after the Reformation. This is a major divinding point in Christendom, and it is really not even mentioned by Dungan. One can connect the dots--these books were approved after the Constantinization of the church, so therefore, "draw your own conclusions as to whether or not this process was legit." It's an important point to consider, but Dungan's failure to address it seems a bit fishy to me.

One very very small final point. At the end, he tacks on a short discussion about how the development of the concept of Scriptural canon impacted Islam. This is an interesting question, but one that has the "feel" of being added primarily because an editor suggested to "put something in there about Islam...that's a hot topic nowadays." It is a fun teaser, but the subject is raised, and dropped, so suddenly that it seems like it would have been better off not being mentioned at all--or being brought in a paranthetical or a footnote. It left the book with a "tacked on" feeling--albeit it provocative one.

In all, a worthwhile read, but one that should be read with full awareness of the tendency to use Constantine (and "Constantinian Christianity") as an easy, and oversimplified, topic these days. On hte other hand, the work excels in showing just how well grounded the selection of texts at least through the time of Eusebius was, thereby "hushing" much of the noise that is raised these days by those trying to revive the "suppressed" secrets of gnostic works.

Written by David L. Dungan (Professor of Religion, University of Tennessee in Knoxville), Constantine's Bible: Politics and the Making of the New Testament is an inquiry into accepted canon of the New Testament that explores the social-historical context of the Greek polis ideology. Chapters examine the precise definition of what is and is not canon, the influence of Greek philosophy upon early Christianity, defense of Catholic scriptures against "pagans and heretics", how the intervention of an Emperor reshaped religious history, and much more. A scholarly, well-researched and succinctly reasoned treatise, shedding new light on our understanding of ancient scriptures, highly recommended for religious studies shelves.

This book is excellent: readable, scholarly, helpful, with information and explanations that can be easily shared with a congregation. I think this book should be required reading in every Christian seminary and school of theology. Constantine's Bible is as exciting as Da Vinci Code--no, it's doubly exciting--because it is based in fact and clearly explains how the New Testament "got that way." You will not be disappointed in this book.

Here's a good book to get anyone you know who enjoyed the fact challenged bestseller the "Da Vinci Code".

Dungan masterfully sets out the process through which Christian scripture became canon. And it makes for a fascinating read.

The Jews insisted on the truth of their one monotheistic God. Although they had many writings about God, these hadn't formed a canon before the arrival of Christianity. Nor had the writings of any other religion.

In fact, Christianity was the first religion to insist on a canon. From the first, "Any deviation from the tradition that the church received was a dire threat to the whole community" (p 25). Paul insists that everyone adhere to tradition, as does 1 Clement, in a letter that was still being read in churches in the time of Eusebius.

By about 100 years after Christ's death Christianity had spread widely and had such an impact that it now had to contend with heretics. It was the era of the Christian apologists. Irenaeus responded to the heretic "Valentinus' accusation that the Christian gospels were incomplete and were interpreted with a childish literalism" (p 45) by insisting that the four gospels were, indeed, the authentic ones.

Oh, those Gnostics and their "secret" knowledge. It was the flood of made-up gospels that led to the four gospels becoming canon.

But who was to decide which was a true gospel? There was an orthodox "church dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, (which) has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith" (p 46). The church "could claim multiple international apostolic successions in each of the great centers" (p 47). Church tradition and church authorities decided.

Eventually, Christians grew so numerous that pagan philosophers grew alarmed. Celsus and Porphyry wrote long polemics against Christianity. Porphyry is outraged that, as he claims, the entire world has heard of them, but no one is stopping them.

And then began the great persecution. Christians were slaughtered, houses of worship were closed, and--and this is important--the Romans demanded that Christians hand over their scriptures so they could be destroyed. This is how closely Christianity had been identified with the canon they believed in.

Constantine arrived soon afterwards, and the debate about which books should be included in the canon was soon over.

This is a intriguing subject, a terrific and well written book, and yes, you should buy it.

****
"... emperor Constantine chose, more or less ham-handedly, a set of books henceforth to count as Christian scripture. As often, there is the merest element of truth amid Brown's distortions, and if one wants to know what it is in this case, one might read David L. Dungan's Constantine's Bible: Politics and the Making of the New Testament." --Robert Price



A brief comment:
In "The First Edition of the New Testament, 2000," Professor David Trobisch of the University of Heidelberg examines early Bible manuscripts, and offers a bold new thesis that during the second century A.D., a group of Church 'editors' produced a unified final redaction of a Bible that became the archetype for all later Bible versions. This overturns centuries of belief that the New Testament was compiled gradually over a long period of time, in different locations, harmonized at a later date after Nicea, to be canonized in Athanasius Paschal letter of 367.

Constantine's Bible is at large a history of the development of scripture and of the NT canon. Dr. Dungan who in intellectual telepathy with Coote's, "Power, politics, and the making of the Bible," adopted the concept, and found role players in Constantine, a Pagan Emperor, and Eusebius, the Arian Bishop of Caesarea, Palestine, stirred unbased doubts on the Canonization process. NT Canon is has a documented ecclesiastical history, that could be searched but has to be proven without doubt. Even an influential theologian as John AT Robinson, could not have consensus on his re dating of NT books, let alone a fictionized History of the New Testament canonization.

The author, who grew his book out of a course, he taught for thirty years, on the making of the NT admitted (preface), that he kept changing the focus of his book, expanding the core of the canonization story, to include a non proven social thesis. He then slipped into praising Greek Philosophy, as a prelude to his explanation on the Hellenistic influence on Christianity. Although the writer elaborated on the selection of and defense of each of the 'Catholic' NT canonic books. After decades of writing serious scholarly books, has decided to go with the new wave of Ehrman et al to share the attention of general readers of limited knowledge.

Constantine's Fifty Bibles:
Few years after the council of Nicea (325), Constantine, wishing to unify Christian worship in the Roman Empire, authorized Eusebius to have 50 Bibles of the holy Scripture, in Greek, copied by professional scribes on fine parchment. In Eusebius own words: "Such were the emperor's commands, which were followed by the immediate execution of the work itself, which we sent him in magnificent and elaborately bound volumes of a threefold and fourfold form." (Vita Const. 4.36.37) Eusebius has not uttered a word, on where they were made, but there was no alternative other than to turn to the Alexandrine Church, which had the most equipped scriptorium, and best trained scribes.

Codices Vaticanus and Sinaiticus readily admit they are remarkably similar, to compel experts in the field of manuscripts, to believe that they have a common origin. Dr. Gregory, states, "This Manuscript (Vaticanus) is supposed, as we have seen, to have come from the same place as the Sinaitic Manuscript. I have said that these two show connections with each other, and that they would suit very well as a pair of the fifty manuscripts written (at Caesarea?) for Constantine the Great." Gregory, The Canon and Text of the NT, pp. 345. Professor FF Bruce's comment should be carefully read, "There are several unanswered questions about these assumptuous copies..., the Christian scriptures were being assiduously sought out and destroyed by imperial authority. .... What type of text has been used in these copies? It has frequently been surmised that the Vatican and Sinaitic codices of the Greek scriptures are survivors from this consignment. That is unlikely; apart from some indications that the Vaticanus codex may have been produced in Alexandria, Egypt."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Concise Background:

Canon of NT Scripture:
The Gospels, acts of the apostles and Paul's letters were written within the first century AD. While the remainder of the New Testament books while being written, other early Christian (Post Apostolic) writings were produced, including the Didache, or, Teachings of the Twelve, Ca. AD 70, I Clement (Ca. 95), the Epistle of Barnabas (Ca. 100), and few letters of Ignatius of Antioch (Ca. 110). According to the Muratorian list, Rome, Ca. AD 200, the basic NT books are the four gospels; the Acts; and letters of Paul. Hebrews, was not included); 1&2 John and Jude; and also the Apocalypse of Peter (Gnostic).

The earliest extant list of the books of the NT, where the word Canon was used, dates half a century after Constantine's Edict of Toleration. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, wrote in his Paschal letter of 367, in the exact same books in number but not exact order of our Bibles (The Catholic letters precede Paul's Epistles). Bishop (First Pope borrowed the Title in 523) Damasus, followed suit, in 382 a letter listing the New Testament books, in their present form, to a bishop in Gaul. Athanasius' defense of orthodoxy and authority which extended for 56 years, never yielding to Arian Emperors, superceded any of his contemporary Roman Bishops, was the key to settling the overlapping alternative Cannons.

Post-Apostolic Writings:
Early Christian works of the Post-Apostolic Church Fathers open a window into the Early Church. The most important epistles included are the Shepherd of Hermas, First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians; The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians,Romans, Philadelphians, etc. and to Polycarp; The Epistles of Polycarp to the Philippians; the Epistles to Diognetus and Barnabas, and the martyrdom of Polycarp. The Didache crowns them all, being the most ancient surviving, out of the canon, teaching document. An instructional handbook for Catechumens derived directly possibly from Q document, or the synoptic Gospels. This work could have been a consequence of the first Apostolic Council, c.50 C. E. (Acts 15:28). Many early Church experts agree that the original version of the Didache circulated possibly as early as mid first century C. E. Never rejected by any local Church, it was excluded from the canon of scripture, for its lack of apostolic authorship.

Didymus Canon:
Didymus the Blind, who was appointed by Athanasius to head the glorious Catechetical school, was revered as the foremost Christian scholar of the fourth century and an influential spiritual director of ascetics. Didymus uncensored voice was recovered through the commentaries among the Turah papyri, a massive set of documents discovered in an Egyptian quarry in 1941. This neglected corpus offers an unprecedented glimpse into the internal workings of a Christian philosophical academy in the most vibrant and tumultuous cultural center of late antiquity. By exploring the social context of Christian instruction in the competitive environment of fourth-century Alexandria, Richard A. Layton elucidates the political implications of biblical interpretation. In his commentaries discovered in 1941, Didymus refers to four Apostolic Fathers with frequency. In addition to the 'Shepherd of Hermas', and 'I Clement, which he highly valued, he considered these writings, in a quasi canonical status, and some of which you could read in Codex Sinaiticus, are not in our present New Testament

The Canon of the New Testament: Its Origin, Development, and Significance

This is a fine edition to any collection on the compilation of the Christian canon. The author does a fine job in making his point, i.e., that the politics of Constantinian Christianization of the Roman Empire provided the impetus for formalizing what was previously a milieu of sometimes widely disparate interpretations of Christ. Indeed, thought the author doesn't quite come out and say it, Constantine's adoption of the Christian cause as his own was both a blessing and a curse for the faith. It gave the movement permanent stability and acceptance at the same time as dogmatizing what had been a vigorous theological discourse. In a way, the Edict of Milan represented the first bow shot of democracy's victory over monarchial tyranny, but it was soon followed by the Council of Nicea's retreat into doctrinal rigidity and orthodoxy. The issue of canon selection was a natural offshoot of this normalizing process by which the Romans could regulate and control the theologically diverse Christian community. Eusebius' key role in winnowing the flock of the New Testament scriptures is described in some detail, though I would have preferred a bit more discussion on the controversy over the Book of Revelation, still a controversial text much abused and misunderstood by today's naive fundamentalists. Still, this is a good quick read about a process that we live with today.

Dungan's recent publication continues to be simply torn to pieces in peer-reviews in scholarly journals, and for good reason. Dungan's poor and - worse - manipulative use of sources, his sweeping statements lacking justification, and his obvious ignorance of the canonization process (ignoring both Zahn and Harnak) is very concerning. More concerning is that Dungan is a good writer... he easily makes you think that you are reading history, not a fictionalized interpretation with leaping, sweeping conclusions. Trained historians will be dismayed, but others might be duped. For example, the development of a concept of a defined canon, church traditions, hierarchies of leadership, etc., seem to have been created (imposed) simply in medias res as part of Constantine's 'program' following the Edict of Milan (is he confusing Constantine with Theodosius? Is he unaware that Constantine had a co-Emperor? Quite astonishing how something could just change overnight, as Dungan promotes). If you beleive Dungan's tones and insinuations, you might get the impression that Constantine built a Christian basilica right in the forum and made himself the Bishop of Rome.
Don't waste your time and money. I did, and I now give selections of it to my students as an example of "how not to write an essay in history class."

Constantine's Bible is at the same time a history of the development of scripture and of the canon. Of course, these two histories are normally seen to be identical; in other words, canon and scripture are synonyms. Early on Dungan explains something of his rationale for this separation of commonly entwined concepts when he observes that "We lose sight of something truly important if we use the term canon as a synonym for any and every conglomeration of scripture. In what follows, I will demonstrate that the legal imposition of a kanon (Latin: regula, a rule, regulation) upon Christian scripture along with a kanon of the correct summary of doctrine (the creed), and the enforcement of both with the full power of the Roman government, was a phenomenon unique to fourth - and fifth - century Christianity." (p. 8)

In the first chapter "What a `Canon' of Scripture is - and is not" Dungan elucidates the distinct concepts of scripture and canon by means of a study of the concepts in other religions. In his comparative religious study Dungan concludes that while a great many religions have the concept of scripture understood as as a set of "semidurable, semifluid, slowly evolving conglomeration of sacred texts ... in use by members of a religious tradition" over a prolonged period (p. 2). A canon however is different and is taken to be the resulting collection of texts "when someone seeks to impose a strict boundary around a smaller subset of writings or teachings" (p. 3).

Chapters two through to offer historical overviews of the two trends in Christian history. In particular, Dungan locates the appeal to the canon as a legacy of Greek philosophy, especially the concern for accuracy that accompanied the Polis. With it there arose a concern for uniformity across the Christian Churches glimpses of which can be found in the New Testament emphasis on the proper construction of the ekklesia, as demonstrated in the Pastoral Epistles. In in the highlight of the book Dungan examines the tests of authenticity used in Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History; which, quite apart from the role int plays in Dungan's argument is a superb read.

While the debate over the content of holy scripture had died down in decades following Marcion's challenge the Christian church had a broadly agreed scripture, it did not however have a canon. This came under the directian of the emporer Constantine had he launched into the political and theological debates that raged throughout the Christian world. One of Constantine's early actions was to order from Eusebius 50 bibles to place in his new state-sponsored church building endeavour. The effect, says Dungan was to creat a Christian canon for the first time: "After Constantine's Bible had been produced, and in the tense atmosphere that followed the Council of Nicaea, what bishop would dare use a bible in his cathedral that differed in content from the ones used by the bishops in Constaninople? He would likely be informed upon and investigated. He could lose his office or worse!" (p. 122).

Hence from this point on, canon=law, where before the language of discussion concerning the authenticity of the New Testament documents had been made with vocabulary such as genuine, spurious, or disputed texts the language was now between canonical (legal) texts and non-canonical (illegal) ones.

"For, since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, ... it is fitting that she should have four pillars ... . From which fact, it is evident that the Word, [...] who was manifested to men, has given us the Gospel under four aspects, but bound together by one Spirit." (III. xi. 8; Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1:428)



Constantine's Bibles:
To start my comments on the 'Davidci' Dungan insightful book, it may be helpful to remember that Emperor Constantine, baptized by Eusebius at his death bed, had nothing to do with the selection or collation of the New Testament's twenty-seven books. By the late second century, Christians throughout the world had accepted twenty books, including the four gospels, as authoritative guidelines for life. Debates about the other seven did persist into the fourth century; however, the final canon emerged from a consensus of church communities and their leaders, not from an imperial decree. After the Council of Nicaea (325), Constantine authorized the copying and distribution of fifty Bibles, but the editions copied before these fifty do not differ significantly from the editions copied after, something that should have been well clarified by the author.

Constantine's Canon:
Neither Constantine nor the Council of Nicea, had virtually anything to do with addressing the canon of scripture, that was not even discussed at Nicea. In his 39th Paschal letter, St. Athanasius, the infamous defender of orthodoxy, wrote to the heads of Churches in East and West, the list of the Canon of scripture. The Old testament contained the books of the Septuagint, the Alexandrian Greek translation of the Hebrew bible, and the twenty seven books of the New Testament as we have them now. By the time of Athanasius, or shortly before, the church had reached an informal consensus about most of the writings to be included in the "New" Testament, with various other post Apostolic writings. In fact, agreement on main books of the NT on this list had been reached in the main centers of early Christianity, more than a century earlier. The process of exhaustive study of most of the books forming the canon had begun even earlier in Alexandria by Clement and origen. However, long before Constantine, 21 books were acknowledged by mostly all Christians (the 4 Gospels, Acts, 13 of Paul, 1 Peter, 1 John. Hebrew in Alexandria and Revelation in Rome. There were other disputed books (James, 2 Peter, 2-3 John, Jude, Ps-Barnabas, Hermas, Didache, Gospel of the Hebrews) and several that were considered heretical (Gospels Thomas, Matthaias, Acts of Peter, Andrew, John, etc.)
Thirty years later, in 397, the council of Carthage confirmed Athanasius Alexandrine Canon, sixty years after Constantine's death. Concerning allusions of manuscripts that were burned at the order of Constantine, there is really no mention of such edict either at the order of Constantine or the minutes of the Council of Nicea.

Tests for NT Book Canonicity:
Two main tests were imposed on any book to be part of the New Testament. Did it come from the time of the apostles? Based on this principles some of the most admired writings, as the Shepherd of Hermas, or the Epistles of Clement, Ignatius, or Polycarp were excluded. Did it agree with what was already known of apostolic teaching and tradition? The second criterion, was the motivation of early church fathers to refute Gnostic Christian writings. This is very articulately stated By Julio Barrera, "If the canonical nature of the NT books lies more in their apostolic origins than in mere inclusions in the conciliar lists, it has to be said that the NT was already established from the moment when the various books it comprises were written. However, the compilation of the lists of the councils required a long period and underwent a complex historical process until it had been defined which books were to belong to the canon and which were to remain outside it."

Outstanding Review:
Didaskalex, Eusebius Alexandrinus review of 'Constantines Bible,' has some very interesting points which support his catechetical standing. I have to add that Constantine's fifty bibles constituted the Alexandrine Sepuagint, quoted by most NT writers, together with the NT twenty seven books. OT/NT based on Jeremiah 31:31 prophecy was an Alexandrine tradition, spearheaded by Origen's great work of the Hexapla. the NT books cotain some of the popular post apostolic fathers, and were produced most probably in the Alexandrian Scriptorium. For professor Dungan to neglect those pivotal points in debating his thesis, especially Dedymus the blind torah finding is strange. His discussion of Dionysius argument on the Apocalypse (pp. 75) is refreshing. Meanwhile he did not even mention why did Athanasius include it, together with the epistle to the Hebrews. Was it a balanced Canon to preserve the unity of the Catholic (Universal Orthodox) church, as mentioned by some scholars. the book remains to be apetizing to the general reader and fresh seminarian.

Informed Review:
"In the first place, it downplays the differences among early Christian communities that regarded each other as orthodox in those early centuries by implying that their collections of scriptural materials--and therefore their ideas of normative Christianity--were virtually the same. ... It would be unfortunate, however, if the contrast the book draws between pre-canonical or non-canonical uses of scripture and canonical uses were to lend support to a false opposition between two major and mutually supportive roles that scripture plays in the life of Christian communities-nurturing the life of faith and aiding the community in distinguishing between genuine and inauthentic teachings." Charles Wood, Perkins School of theology